27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
General baseline characteristics of the study population were mean (standard deviation) age, 58.1 (8.8) years; 47% women. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vision impairment (VI) and eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma and cataract have been reported to be associated with cognitive impairment and dementia, however, to date, very little attempt has been made to collate and synthesizes such literature. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 232 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As visual impairment, cataract, and diabetic retinopathy are associated with an increased likelihood of developing dementia, early diagnosis may help identify those at risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 37,705 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Visually impaired individuals were more likely to develop incident dementia, with a progressively greater risk among those with worse visual acuity. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 117,187 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventy-one studies were included for review, representing a total of 6757 patients (2350 AD, 793 MCI, 2902 healthy controls (HC), and 841 others with a range of other neurodegenerative diagnoses). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 6,757 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our systematic review indicates that a majority of studies examining the vision-cognition relationship report that VI is associated with more cognitive decline, cognitive impairment or dementia among older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thinning of retinal layers, measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT), is associated with some neurodegenerative disorders such as established Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 622 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Topic Visual impairment (VI) and cognitive impairment (CIM) are prevalent age-related conditions that impose substantial burden on the society. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 47 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
One hundred twenty-eight participants (21.9%) developed dementia over a median of 7.1 years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 584 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fourteen studies assessing OCT-A in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment, or AD were included. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Retinal thickness is decreased in AD and MCI patients compared to HC. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ten studies assessing retinal properties in dementia were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A narrative synthesis approach will be used to analyse the results, with meta-analysis performed if there is sufficient data. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Topic OCT is a noninvasive tool to measure specific retinal layers in the eye. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over 68,904 person-years of follow-up, 1,349 participants developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,349 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NfL, Aβ40, Aβ42, GFAP, and p-tau181 were detected in all AH samples by Simoa platform. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This retrospective case-control study aimed to investigate associations between disease severity of Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and macular thickness. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
HIGHLIGHTS: We demonstrated the diagnostic performance of qLRP in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most risk factors under study (i.e., hyperglycemia, unhealthy diet, lower cardiorespiratory fitness, smoking, alcohol consumption, and hypertension) were significantly associated with lower retinal sensitivity and lower RNFL thickness. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,666 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-eight eyes from 30 participants (53% female; mean [SD] age, 74.5 [5.6] years; age range, 62-92 years) were included in the analysis. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundRetinal thickness has been associated with neurocognitive conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (AD).ObjectiveRetinal cell layer thickness was evaluated for associations with neurodegenerative protein biomarkers glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in plasma, vitreous humor, and aqueous humor. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 124 eyes of 69 participants with PD (39 men [56.5%]; mean [SD] age, 71.7 [7.0] years) and 248 eyes of 137 control participants (77 men [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [6.7] years) were analyzed. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to controls, returning FTD patients (143 vs. 130 μm, p = 0.005) and the tauopathy subgroup (143 vs. 128 μm, p = 0.03) had thinner outer retinas but similar inner layer thicknesses. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We report that by early prion disease (50% timepoint), discrete fluorescent foci appeared adjacent to the optic disc. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The surface area of inclusion bodies increased as a function of cortical amyloid burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
7 of the 151 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 7. The same 7 appear here every time.
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →